Tram Firm Charged With $495,000 Error

Excessive charges by Winnipeg Electric Co. for depreciation, and disregard of other revenues and savings of its 1948 business are main findings in a report filed today with the Municipal and Public Utility Board.

The report was prepared at request of the board by W. C. MacDonnell, member of the chartered accountant firm of Millar MacDonald & Co.

It is based on information supplied by the company at previous meetings on the Winnipeg Electric Company's application for increase in fares.

The report charged that the company:

• Over-charged $363,504 last year for depreciation.
• Over-estimated $30,000 for average annual snow removal costs from city streets.
• Did not take into account $2,600 revenue to one of its subsidiaries from fares in the city zone.
• Disregarded a $99,000 saving on conversion to trolley buses.

Mr. MacDonell was the only witness at today's hearing. Aside from the formality of evidence that he prepared, the report and the findings in it were his opinion. No other testimony was taken.

Hearings on the company application will be resumed at 10 a.m. Thursday.

Counsel for the company, R. D. Guy, K.C., said it did not agree with either the facts or findings in the report and asked time to more carefully review it before calling rebuttal evidences.

Mr. Guy said his main witnesses were C. H. Dahl, vice-president in charge of the railway utility; A. E. K. Bunnell, Toronto, a public utility expert and consultant; and John H. Bickley, Louisville, Kentucky, former member of several public service commissions in the United States, who is now manage of the Louisville Street Railway system.

Mr. Guy said he was prepared to immediately call Mr. Dahl but as his other two witnesses only arrived in Winnipeg today, he wished reasonable time to permit them to examine the report.

Chairman D. L. Mellish was willing to proceed but E. D. Honeyman, K.C., member of the Board, thought it was improper to proceed with part of the rebuttal evidence.

Counsel for the Board, A. E. Johnstone, K.C. agreed with Mr. Honeyman.

Mr. Mellish remarked he could not see what possible difference it made if Mr. Guy was ready to proceed, but without understanding why, he would defer to opinion of the lawyers.

In summary, Mr. MacDonnell's finding's were:—

• The motor bus is is not an economical method of transportation under present costs and its operation ...

(Missing rest of article)